As for the Code: “A code is a rule for converting a piece of information (for example, a letter, word, phrase, or gesture) into another form or representation (one sign into another sign), not necessarily of the same type.” (Wiki_information) There are dozens of different codes around us. Take an example of a constitution/an organic law. People who reject the code 19 are following one right? There are some certain things we all accept to live togather. Some types of personal rights for instance, we all accept that we do have them. Keeping them protected and assuring ourselves that it is so(with criminal_laws etc.), thus “worry” will have a lesser place in our life which in return means more room for “positive” for all of us. But what are they actually? What is an organic law? What we put on the papers of the constituions or law_books is not only and only_visual things to be converted into another form a of a sign. By doing so, we simply and actually accept that we all have an idea of a “world”, as a corresponding mechanism consisting things and persons interacting/corresponding/connected to each other, supposed to be exactly the same for oneself at different times and for different minds at the same time a set of intersections). Isn’t that real an moronic at the same time? Isn’t that in the medium of one’s individual consciousness? And isnt that a big question for ignorance? The problem may thus be introduced.. Some poeple seem to have inadequate information about word “code” and also a type of ignorance proccessing in the mind possibly caused by the so_called numerology stuff surfing around.. If that is the case, then they have a right in writing their beautiful minds as they’are and judge each presented data on the code 19 and consider them as rubbish, only because data claims to have a conneciton with something_divine (not neccesariliy the divine or Truth ‘itself’). Where does this exact understanding of divine come from for heavaens sake? By the very reactions presented so far against Code 19, this very question about the source arises. Do you take into account the process that u approach with this very end?! However, in time, actions built on some un-intentioned terms themselves are becoming a stereotype. Unless we are very cautious we wont be able to distinguish from what is and is not. These people who are aganist the code, majority of it seem to have no idea about it. Not a single one. And this behavioural reaction adopted from our less developed ancestors insidiously creates an illusion of certanity of what the nature of anything should be, what a divine is or would be and what it could or would or should possess and all that. All this may have a ground, as it seems, in our chancing consciousness which most of us seek to have a better one, a beautiful one, a happy or a right one. One that is undisputable. A main step after the first conclusion one should be able take care of the critisizing-process with a holistic approach and taking into account each component and see if there is any un-questioned connection of the rejecting mind or if it has no_clue but a rush in hasty generalizations and personalization of the subject. As it is mentioned, tough there may be some reasonable points leading a person conclude on the surface, it cannot be a state of mind in which we practically live. We must be able to go deep in. We should be able to eleminate the hypothetical factor, see the significance of it. Which would be something like “If I was to study the presented data, it(or I) would be “this” or “that” and consequences would lead to “here” and there. By doing so you go deadly wrong. When I is associated with subject from the core we are always bias. Thus we should be careful about our Judgements and expectations. We all are searching ways to truth so that it would let us free, we ask for help, but when a sign comes we drop into ignorance. I see how similiar is the issue with Pharoah’s. What he was given nothing but words in the begining. Then some facts in action. But none helped him. Questions into the wind on Code 19 vividly unleashes the basic structure of ones individual mind. I also try to understand their standpoint and say: Somethings neccesary does not mean that it precedes and over takes. Something is not everything, correct? So why to hesitate to consider a very hot_issue that keeps poking us. Why cant we go forward and for it? On the other hand, if we try to give meaning life from a holistic view with its object, we fail. I dont see such object. We are much more sophisticated beings and we can do better then that. We should ask, in this case, is there a link from a phenomenalism(possibly) to reason. Are we right in making anologies from one reality to another with no further explanation and claim them to be right? However, by now, it should be clear that objectivity of sense perception in some degree must correspond to each other. I’m not claiming here to know all the but to avoid misundestandings we have to be mindful in these steps and have a better and clearer view. -- Ansar
Posted on: Tue, 15 Oct 2013 20:24:13 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015